Spenser Wilklinson J:

The only point in this appeal upon which I had any doubts was the question whether the four charges were properly joined.When the accused's premises were searched certain utensils for use in connection with prepared opium were found in his room, as was also some prepared opium.Behind the panels of the accused's motor car in the garage adjacent to his house were found something over 14 katties of raw opium and about three katties of prepared opium.The accused was originally charged with the possession of the raw opium in the car as one charge and the possession of the prepared opium in the car as the second charge.To these two charges were added a third charge in respect of the utensils found in the house and a fourth charge relating to the prepared opium found in the house.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the addition of these charges was wrong and prejudiced the accused.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that the submission of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor that in substance there was one act of possession in respect of four different items and that the charges were sufficiently connected by reason of the nature of the articles to fall within the provisions of s. 175(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is correct.

That the opium was found in the car somewhat later than the opium and utensils found in the house was purely fortuitous and, had the accused produced the key of the garage when he was asked for it, all these items would have been found at substantially the same time. I think the position was therefore the same as would have arisen if all these different items had been found in different parts of the same house.

(The rest of the judgment is not relevant to this report.Edn. MLJ).

Appeal dismissed.